Recently, writer Ellen Scott penned an article for Metro UK entitled "Pole-hogging is the new manspreading, and we"re so, so tired of it."

Pole-hogging, writes Scott, is the act of "a man, leaning with his entire back, shoulders, and butt against the pole" in a bus, making other passengers unable to use it. According to Scott, this "epidemic" shows "that men think they have more of a right than women to public spaces."

This isn"t the first time we"ve heard complaints of this nature, nor the obnoxious attempt to use "man" as a pejorative. We"ve seen complaints about "man-spreading" in the Telegraph, (guys opening their legs on the subway and taking up space). In New York City there have been two arrests for the crime of man-spreading. Even man-slamming, the act of men not moving out of the way for women on the street, but simply walking into them if they do not move first.

I can imagine it is exhausting to see men comfortably traveling on the bus when your micro-aggression radar is set to max all day long.

These criticisms against men are, for the most part, simply a matter of personal experience. What should really matter is the cold hard fact that women have many more special social privileges set aside for them than men do; privileges they feel entitled to.

There is not a single "men"s-only" gym in my area, but plenty just for women. Every pole dancing studio in my area is just for women, if anything making them the "pole-hoggers." There are seats set aside only for women, and safe spaces on our campuses where males are excluded. The fact is most of these privileges are requested for by women, yet we rarely see men do the same. So who really feels entitled to the space around them?

When feminists ask for gender equality, they rarely seem to want to change their own privileges, such as the "women and children first." And if men seek an equal footing, feminists are first in line to oppose them. When a British MP recently requested a day of Parliamentary debates on predominantly male issues like suicide and workplace fatality, modeled on an already-existing equivalent for women"s issues, the response of a left-wing feminist MP was to ridicule the suggestion.

It almost seems guaranteed that if they could, these ladies would request an entire section of the bus for themselves. Yet I expect they would still find some way to continue the cries of oppression and discrimination. Stare rape? Smell spreading? Male voice-spreading? It"s sure to happen eventually. The hypersensitive never really solve problems: they just invent new ones.

They"ll continue to see what they want to see with their micro-aggression radar"s and hypersensitivity levels to max.

Yes it"s rude to take up extra space on the subway, and yes, so is blocking a handrail or taking up a seat with your bag, but both genders do it. The identity politics at play here is nothing but an irrational dislike for one half of the population, and does little to actually solve the problem of minor inconveniences on public transit. Perhaps if complaints were targeted at rude people, rather than an entire demographic of society, than maybe, just maybe, we might see some real social progress.

Unfortunately, feminists seem more inclined to vilify men than make the world a better place for everyone. To them, it doesn"t matter how equal our society is or how pandered to women are. All that matters is that they stay the "victim." I suspect the oppression Olympics will continue until men are accused of oxygen hogging and demanded to stop.

- written by Lauren Southern.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

At 7/16/2016 9:00:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:Recently, writer Ellen Scott penned an article for Metro UK entitled "Pole-hogging is the new manspreading, and we"re so, so tired of it."

Pole-hogging, writes Scott, is the act of "a man, leaning with his entire back, shoulders, and butt against the pole" in a bus, making other passengers unable to use it. According to Scott, this "epidemic" shows "that men think they have more of a right than women to public spaces."

This isn"t the first time we"ve heard complaints of this nature, nor the obnoxious attempt to use "man" as a pejorative. We"ve seen complaints about "man-spreading" in the Telegraph, (guys opening their legs on the subway and taking up space). In New York City there have been two arrests for the crime of man-spreading. Even man-slamming, the act of men not moving out of the way for women on the street, but simply walking into them if they do not move first.

I can imagine it is exhausting to see men comfortably traveling on the bus when your micro-aggression radar is set to max all day long.

These criticisms against men are, for the most part, simply a matter of personal experience. What should really matter is the cold hard fact that women have many more special social privileges set aside for them than men do; privileges they feel entitled to.

There is not a single "men"s-only" gym in my area, but plenty just for women. Every pole dancing studio in my area is just for women, if anything making them the "pole-hoggers." There are seats set aside only for women, and safe spaces on our campuses where males are excluded. The fact is most of these privileges are requested for by women, yet we rarely see men do the same. So who really feels entitled to the space around them?

When feminists ask for gender equality, they rarely seem to want to change their own privileges, such as the "women and children first." And if men seek an equal footing, feminists are first in line to oppose them. When a British MP recently requested a day of Parliamentary debates on predominantly male issues like suicide and workplace fatality, modeled on an already-existing equivalent for women"s issues, the response of a left-wing feminist MP was to ridicule the suggestion.

It almost seems guaranteed that if they could, these ladies would request an entire section of the bus for themselves. Yet I expect they would still find some way to continue the cries of oppression and discrimination. Stare rape? Smell spreading? Male voice-spreading? It"s sure to happen eventually. The hypersensitive never really solve problems: they just invent new ones.

They"ll continue to see what they want to see with their micro-aggression radar"s and hypersensitivity levels to max.

Yes it"s rude to take up extra space on the subway, and yes, so is blocking a handrail or taking up a seat with your bag, but both genders do it. The identity politics at play here is nothing but an irrational dislike for one half of the population, and does little to actually solve the problem of minor inconveniences on public transit. Perhaps if complaints were targeted at rude people, rather than an entire demographic of society, than maybe, just maybe, we might see some real social progress.

Unfortunately, feminists seem more inclined to vilify men than make the world a better place for everyone. To them, it doesn"t matter how equal our society is or how pandered to women are. All that matters is that they stay the "victim." I suspect the oppression Olympics will continue until men are accused of oxygen hogging and demanded to stop.

- written by Lauren Southern.

I agree! I'm tired of people not being able to own up for their own actions and blaming men or women or blacks or whites or other for everything!

Feminists blame men for everything and I'm so sick of it and appalled by it! People should OWN UP to their own actions instead of turning racist or sexist and blaming their actions on an entire social group!

At 7/16/2016 9:00:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:Recently, writer Ellen Scott penned an article for Metro UK entitled "Pole-hogging is the new manspreading, and we"re so, so tired of it."

Pole-hogging, writes Scott, is the act of "a man, leaning with his entire back, shoulders, and butt against the pole" in a bus, making other passengers unable to use it. According to Scott, this "epidemic" shows "that men think they have more of a right than women to public spaces."

This isn"t the first time we"ve heard complaints of this nature, nor the obnoxious attempt to use "man" as a pejorative. We"ve seen complaints about "man-spreading" in the Telegraph, (guys opening their legs on the subway and taking up space). In New York City there have been two arrests for the crime of man-spreading. Even man-slamming, the act of men not moving out of the way for women on the street, but simply walking into them if they do not move first.

I can imagine it is exhausting to see men comfortably traveling on the bus when your micro-aggression radar is set to max all day long.

These criticisms against men are, for the most part, simply a matter of personal experience. What should really matter is the cold hard fact that women have many more special social privileges set aside for them than men do; privileges they feel entitled to.

There is not a single "men"s-only" gym in my area, but plenty just for women. Every pole dancing studio in my area is just for women, if anything making them the "pole-hoggers." There are seats set aside only for women, and safe spaces on our campuses where males are excluded. The fact is most of these privileges are requested for by women, yet we rarely see men do the same. So who really feels entitled to the space around them?

When feminists ask for gender equality, they rarely seem to want to change their own privileges, such as the "women and children first." And if men seek an equal footing, feminists are first in line to oppose them. When a British MP recently requested a day of Parliamentary debates on predominantly male issues like suicide and workplace fatality, modeled on an already-existing equivalent for women"s issues, the response of a left-wing feminist MP was to ridicule the suggestion.

It almost seems guaranteed that if they could, these ladies would request an entire section of the bus for themselves. Yet I expect they would still find some way to continue the cries of oppression and discrimination. Stare rape? Smell spreading? Male voice-spreading? It"s sure to happen eventually. The hypersensitive never really solve problems: they just invent new ones.

They"ll continue to see what they want to see with their micro-aggression radar"s and hypersensitivity levels to max.

Yes it"s rude to take up extra space on the subway, and yes, so is blocking a handrail or taking up a seat with your bag, but both genders do it. The identity politics at play here is nothing but an irrational dislike for one half of the population, and does little to actually solve the problem of minor inconveniences on public transit. Perhaps if complaints were targeted at rude people, rather than an entire demographic of society, than maybe, just maybe, we might see some real social progress.

Unfortunately, feminists seem more inclined to vilify men than make the world a better place for everyone. To them, it doesn"t matter how equal our society is or how pandered to women are. All that matters is that they stay the "victim." I suspect the oppression Olympics will continue until men are accused of oxygen hogging and demanded to stop.

- written by Lauren Southern.

I agree! I'm tired of people not being able to own up for their own actions and blaming men or women or blacks or whites or other for everything!

Feminists blame men for everything and I'm so sick of it and appalled by it! People should OWN UP to their own actions instead of turning racist or sexist and blaming their actions on an entire social group!

Agreed

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

It's sad to see posts like this. It's an attempt to attack an idea by picking at parts that aren't actually beholden by the fundamental idea, but only held by a crazy minority. It's the cheapest way to attack an idea. That's why its idiotic to say that conservativism is such a dumb ideology by explaining how Bill O'Rieilly is dumb. Its a cheap shot, but for some reason this is how almost every single person is trying to argue against feminism. I haven't seen one post that actually tries to debunk feminism based on its core ideology, only at how dumb the extremists are and thus concluding the whole movement is dumb. The article embodies femenazis, who are batsh!t crazy, but then concludes that feminism is batsh!t crazy. The logic isn't sound, its nonsequitar. Theres probably a logical fallacy named after it, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

It would make sense that people want to attack femenazis though, as their ideology inherently results in impeding in people's lives. I haven't ever been really effected by a femanazi, I know a few people have, but the strange thing is that the majority of people haven't. But, most people have been affected by SJW's, mostly at school and thus make the relation of SJW's to femanazis, which is a reasonable connection to make. But I'm not sure why they pursist in connecting it to actual feminism, as actual feminism never did anything to them. I of course would be angered by SJWs trying to change my life, and thus I would lash out at them, but it wouldn't make sense to direct that anger and justify civil rights leaders like MLK as being dumb. What did MLK, or for that matter actual feminism ever do to you? What's the *reason* for taking cheap shots at feminism through the logical fallacy of feminazis=feminism? It doesn't make sense, maybe its a "follow-the-herd" ideology since everyone else is doing it. Or maybe people actually believe that feminazis=feminism now. Which is scary, and is worth clearing up. But why was this made in the first place? There must have been someone who started it and everyone followed it, which eventually led to people forgetting the connection. Whoever started it must have been a dumb sh!t indeed.

Regardless, the cost of this equation is great, as there are actual important issues that feminism is fighting for. The issue's are not the dumbsh!t that feminazis are fighting like manspreading lmao, and thus saying that feminists are fighting for this is tremendously problematic as it drowns out actual important issues.

The issues of 1st wave feminism are very important, mainly the right to vote and property rights. This feminist issue is obviously very important and reasonable. And this is the core of feminism, equalilty between sexes, as characterized by the first wave.https://en.wikipedia.org...

Second wave dealt with being able to be in the military, being payed equally (a man and a woman doing the exact same job should be payed the same, resulted in Equal Pay Act https://en.wikipedia.org...), paid maternity leave, fair hiring practices (aren't allowed to not hire someone on basis of them being a woman), ability to use contraceptives, focusing on women being in politics, and allowing abortion. All of these values are pretty basic, all of which end obvious discrimination against women, making things more fair. I don't think anyone seriously opposes any of these, that aren't like extremists like the KKK and stuff.https://en.wikipedia.org...

Third wave is the current one, and I disagree with some of their values. Some of modern feminism's values aren't reasonable, but some are. Third wave feminism focuses on gender violence such as domestic violence. Obviously this is an issue that everyone should support, and it is a fundamental part of feminism. But of course, no one pays attention to what feminism actually proposes lol. Third wave also pushes for reproductive rights, which is obviously a reasonable issue. The other issues I disagree with are anti-pornography, and changing derogatory language. So two issues out of the entire ideology are not reasonable, but that is what feminists believe in. Feminazis are extremists are embody unreasonable ideologies like you propose, such as manscaping. But to say that ending manscaping is what feminists believe?? That's ludicrous.

Anti-pornography is dumb because it doesn't characterize women as unequal. It characterizes them as inherently different roles, but none of these roles make them any less "equal", thus it isn't an issue. And the derogratory stuff, I obviously don't use those words since they shouldn't be used, no one should use them. But that needs to be a choice that the individual makes, campaigning to stop the derogratory words is silly, maybe encouraging people individually not to use it, like on a bus or something *might* be fine. But campaigning for it doesn't make sense.

At 7/16/2016 10:16:57 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:Feminists blame men for everything and I'm so sick of it and appalled by it! People should OWN UP to their own actions instead of turning racist or sexist and blaming their actions on an entire social group!

At 7/16/2016 9:00:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:Recently, writer Ellen Scott penned an article for Metro UK entitled "Pole-hogging is the new manspreading, and we"re so, so tired of it."

Pole-hogging, writes Scott, is the act of "a man, leaning with his entire back, shoulders, and butt against the pole" in a bus, making other passengers unable to use it. According to Scott, this "epidemic" shows "that men think they have more of a right than women to public spaces."

A man sitting on a bus is in no way sexist. Baseless accusation. All passengers are effected if one passenger hogs space not just females.

This isn"t the first time we"ve heard complaints of this nature, nor the obnoxious attempt to use "man" as a pejorative. We"ve seen complaints about "man-spreading" in the Telegraph, (guys opening their legs on the subway and taking up space). In New York City there have been two arrests for the crime of man-spreading. Even man-slamming, the act of men not moving out of the way for women on the street, but simply walking into them if they do not move first.

A man should not be expected to move out of a woman's way or be criticized for not doing so.

I can imagine it is exhausting to see men comfortably traveling on the bus when your micro-aggression radar is set to max all day

These criticisms against men are, for the most part, simply a matter of personal experience. What should really matter is the cold hard fact that women have many more special social privileges set aside for them than men do; privileges they feel entitled to.

There is not a single "men"s-only" gym in my area, but plenty just for women. Every pole dancing studio in my area is just for women, if anything making them the "pole-hoggers." There are seats set aside only for women, and safe spaces on our campuses where males are excluded. The fact is most of these privileges are requested for by women, yet we rarely see men do the same. So who really feels entitled to the space around them?

Personally I see little need for separate gyms. If a gym is segragated half for males and half for females I would be ok with it but I oppose male only or female only facilities. Someone should not be excluded from a gym because of their gender.

When feminists ask for gender equality, they rarely seem to want to change their own privileges, such as the "women and children first." And if men seek an equal footing, feminists are first in line to oppose them. When a British MP recently requested a day of Parliamentary debates on predominantly male issues like suicide and workplace fatality, modeled on an already-existing equivalent for women"s issues, the response of a left-wing feminist MP was to ridicule the suggestion.

I oppose female privelage as strongly as I oppose male privilege. I believe in equality.

It almost seems guaranteed that if they could, these ladies would request an entire section of the bus for themselves. Yet I expect they would still find some way to continue the cries of oppression and discrimination. Stare rape? Smell spreading? Male voice-spreading? It"s sure to happen eventually. The hypersensitive never really solve problems: they just invent new ones.

In my opinion the women who hold those views are feminazis not feminists.

They"ll continue to see what they want to see with their micro-aggression radar"s and hypersensitivity levels to max.

Yes it"s rude to take up extra space on the subway, and yes, so is blocking a handrail or taking up a seat with your bag, but both genders do it. The identity politics at play here is nothing but an irrational dislike for one half of the population, and does little to actually solve the problem of minor inconveniences on public transit. Perhaps if complaints were targeted at rude people, rather than an entire demographic of society, than maybe, just maybe, we might see some real social progress.

Completely agree.

Unfortunately, feminists seem more inclined to vilify men than make the world a better place for everyone. To them, it doesn"t matter how equal our society is or how pandered to women are. All that matters is that they stay the "victim." I suspect the oppression Olympics will continue until men are accused of oxygen hogging and demanded to stop.

It's an unfair accusation. A few feminazis do not represent feminism. Using the views of extremists to attack a cause is a common strategy and although should be used as a way of encouraging the cause in question to address its extremist fragments it cannot reasonably be used by society to judge the cause in its entirety.

At 7/16/2016 10:16:57 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:Feminists blame men for everything and I'm so sick of it and appalled by it! People should OWN UP to their own actions instead of turning racist or sexist and blaming their actions on an entire social group!

The irony of these posts are hilarious.

At least I'm not sexist or racist and unlike a lot of people, I'm actually making the world a better place by preaching equality for everyone on this site and that's way better than any dumb, moronic feminist or Black Lives Matter member!

At 7/18/2016 10:52:14 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:At least I'm not sexist or racist and unlike a lot of people, I'm actually making the world a better place by preaching equality for everyone on this site and that's way better than any dumb, moronic feminist or Black Lives Matter member!

Your comments are inconsistent and hypocritical as my highlighted double standard illustrates. The generalizations of entire groups in these posts are boring. The hateful rhetoric I've seen in this thread doesn't promote much intellectual value.

At 7/18/2016 10:52:14 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:At least I'm not sexist or racist and unlike a lot of people, I'm actually making the world a better place by preaching equality for everyone on this site and that's way better than any dumb, moronic feminist or Black Lives Matter member!

Your comments are inconsistent and hypocritical as my highlighted double standard illustrates. The generalizations of entire groups in these posts are boring. The hateful rhetoric I've seen in this thread doesn't promote much intellectual value.

Excellent post. I 100% agree with you. The attacks against feminism based on batsh!t crazy outliers is irresponsible, intellectually lazy, fundamentally dishonest and intentionally antagonistic. It's also annoying that people assume if you're a feminist, you're calling for some kind of government action or intervention. I'm a libertarian feminist. Some of my favorite political theorists were feminist anarchists.

At 7/17/2016 12:22:39 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:That would be a wonder. Then we can bomb saudi arabia and kill both of the groups, the useless Islamists and feminists.

Lol you are hands down one of the most hateful and ignorant people I've come across in a long time. I feel sorry for you. I genuinely hope one day you receive a more holistic, balanced and thorough education. Maybe this site will help.

At 7/17/2016 12:22:39 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:That would be a wonder. Then we can bomb saudi arabia and kill both of the groups, the useless Islamists and feminists.

Lol you are hands down one of the most hateful and ignorant people I've come across in a long time. I feel sorry for you. I genuinely hope one day you receive a more holistic, balanced and thorough education. Maybe this site will help.

(doesn't understand that I'm being provocative on purpose).

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

Excellent post. I 100% agree with you. The attacks against feminism based on batsh!t crazy outliers is irresponsible, intellectually lazy, fundamentally dishonest and intentionally antagonistic. It's also annoying that people assume if you're a feminist, you're calling for some kind of government action or intervention. I'm a libertarian feminist. Some of my favorite political theorists were feminist anarchists.

At 7/18/2016 5:42:00 PM, Hayd wrote:It's sad to see posts like this. It's an attempt to attack an idea by picking at parts that aren't actually beholden by the fundamental idea, but only held by a crazy minority. It's the cheapest way to attack an idea. That's why its idiotic to say that conservativism is such a dumb ideology by explaining how Bill O'Rieilly is dumb. Its a cheap shot, but for some reason this is how almost every single person is trying to argue against feminism. I haven't seen one post that actually tries to debunk feminism based on its core ideology, only at how dumb the extremists are and thus concluding the whole movement is dumb. The article embodies femenazis, who are batsh!t crazy, but then concludes that feminism is batsh!t crazy. The logic isn't sound, its nonsequitar. Theres probably a logical fallacy named after it, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

It would make sense that people want to attack femenazis though, as their ideology inherently results in impeding in people's lives. I haven't ever been really effected by a femanazi, I know a few people have, but the strange thing is that the majority of people haven't. But, most people have been affected by SJW's, mostly at school and thus make the relation of SJW's to femanazis, which is a reasonable connection to make. But I'm not sure why they pursist in connecting it to actual feminism, as actual feminism never did anything to them. I of course would be angered by SJWs trying to change my life, and thus I would lash out at them, but it wouldn't make sense to direct that anger and justify civil rights leaders like MLK as being dumb. What did MLK, or for that matter actual feminism ever do to you? What's the *reason* for taking cheap shots at feminism through the logical fallacy of feminazis=feminism? It doesn't make sense, maybe its a "follow-the-herd" ideology since everyone else is doing it. Or maybe people actually believe that feminazis=feminism now. Which is scary, and is worth clearing up. But why was this made in the first place? There must have been someone who started it and everyone followed it, which eventually led to people forgetting the connection. Whoever started it must have been a dumb sh!t indeed.

Regardless, the cost of this equation is great, as there are actual important issues that feminism is fighting for. The issue's are not the dumbsh!t that feminazis are fighting like manspreading lmao, and thus saying that feminists are fighting for this is tremendously problematic as it drowns out actual important issues.

The issues of 1st wave feminism are very important, mainly the right to vote and property rights. This feminist issue is obviously very important and reasonable. And this is the core of feminism, equalilty between sexes, as characterized by the first wave.https://en.wikipedia.org...

Second wave dealt with being able to be in the military, being payed equally (a man and a woman doing the exact same job should be payed the same, resulted in Equal Pay Act https://en.wikipedia.org...), paid maternity leave, fair hiring practices (aren't allowed to not hire someone on basis of them being a woman), ability to use contraceptives, focusing on women being in politics, and allowing abortion. All of these values are pretty basic, all of which end obvious discrimination against women, making things more fair. I don't think anyone seriously opposes any of these, that aren't like extremists like the KKK and stuff.https://en.wikipedia.org...

Third wave is the current one, and I disagree with some of their values. Some of modern feminism's values aren't reasonable, but some are. Third wave feminism focuses on gender violence such as domestic violence. Obviously this is an issue that everyone should support, and it is a fundamental part of feminism. But of course, no one pays attention to what feminism actually proposes lol. Third wave also pushes for reproductive rights, which is obviously a reasonable issue. The other issues I disagree with are anti-pornography, and changing derogatory language. So two issues out of the entire ideology are not reasonable, but that is what feminists believe in. Feminazis are extremists are embody unreasonable ideologies like you propose, such as manscaping. But to say that ending manscaping is what feminists believe?? That's ludicrous.

Anti-pornography is dumb because it doesn't characterize women as unequal. It characterizes them as inherently different roles, but none of these roles make them any less "equal", thus it isn't an issue. And the derogratory stuff, I obviously don't use those words since they shouldn't be used, no one should use them. But that needs to be a choice that the individual makes, campaigning to stop the derogratory words is silly, maybe encouraging people individually not to use it, like on a bus or something *might* be fine. But campaigning for it doesn't make sense.

How many examples of bat sh!t crazy feminists do you need for you to change you opinion of them? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm actually looking for an exact number.Also, what reproductive rights are women not afforded? What rights are they missing that men enjoy? Why should domestic abuse be focused around women, when both sexes experience it (men are victims around 40% of the time) and why does there need to be any sort of push if the laws already exist to punish those who commit these crimes?

At 7/20/2016 12:36:06 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:How many examples of bat sh!t crazy feminists do you need for you to change you opinion of them? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm actually looking for an exact number.

Those examples would be of feminazis, and I don't need any examples to know that they are batsh!t crazy, since I already know they are. But you can't give any examples of actual feminists, and their ideologies as layed out in my post, of being crazy. All you can show are feminazis

Also, what reproductive rights are women not afforded? What rights are they missing that men enjoy? Why should domestic abuse be focused around women, when both sexes experience it (men are victims around 40% of the time) and why does there need to be any sort of push if the laws already exist to punish those who commit these crimes?

Reproductive rights would be contraceptives, like birth control pills, and abortion. Men don't have to give birth, or become pregnant with a child. Thus the mother's ability to terminate it, have abortion, is necessary. Many people are pushing to make contraceptives illegal, and abortion is illegal in many states.

At 7/16/2016 9:00:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:Recently, writer Ellen Scott penned an article for Metro UK entitled "Pole-hogging is the new manspreading, and we"re so, so tired of it."

Pole-hogging, writes Scott, is the act of "a man, leaning with his entire back, shoulders, and butt against the pole" in a bus, making other passengers unable to use it. According to Scott, this "epidemic" shows "that men think they have more of a right than women to public spaces."

This isn"t the first time we"ve heard complaints of this nature, nor the obnoxious attempt to use "man" as a pejorative. We"ve seen complaints about "man-spreading" in the Telegraph, (guys opening their legs on the subway and taking up space). In New York City there have been two arrests for the crime of man-spreading. Even man-slamming, the act of men not moving out of the way for women on the street, but simply walking into them if they do not move first.

I can imagine it is exhausting to see men comfortably traveling on the bus when your micro-aggression radar is set to max all day long.

These criticisms against men are, for the most part, simply a matter of personal experience. What should really matter is the cold hard fact that women have many more special social privileges set aside for them than men do; privileges they feel entitled to.

There is not a single "men"s-only" gym in my area, but plenty just for women. Every pole dancing studio in my area is just for women, if anything making them the "pole-hoggers." There are seats set aside only for women, and safe spaces on our campuses where males are excluded. The fact is most of these privileges are requested for by women, yet we rarely see men do the same. So who really feels entitled to the space around them?

When feminists ask for gender equality, they rarely seem to want to change their own privileges, such as the "women and children first." And if men seek an equal footing, feminists are first in line to oppose them. When a British MP recently requested a day of Parliamentary debates on predominantly male issues like suicide and workplace fatality, modeled on an already-existing equivalent for women"s issues, the response of a left-wing feminist MP was to ridicule the suggestion.

It almost seems guaranteed that if they could, these ladies would request an entire section of the bus for themselves. Yet I expect they would still find some way to continue the cries of oppression and discrimination. Stare rape? Smell spreading? Male voice-spreading? It"s sure to happen eventually. The hypersensitive never really solve problems: they just invent new ones.

They"ll continue to see what they want to see with their micro-aggression radar"s and hypersensitivity levels to max.

Yes it"s rude to take up extra space on the subway, and yes, so is blocking a handrail or taking up a seat with your bag, but both genders do it. The identity politics at play here is nothing but an irrational dislike for one half of the population, and does little to actually solve the problem of minor inconveniences on public transit. Perhaps if complaints were targeted at rude people, rather than an entire demographic of society, than maybe, just maybe, we might see some real social progress.

Unfortunately, feminists seem more inclined to vilify men than make the world a better place for everyone. To them, it doesn"t matter how equal our society is or how pandered to women are. All that matters is that they stay the "victim." I suspect the oppression Olympics will continue until men are accused of oxygen hogging and demanded to stop.

At 7/20/2016 12:26:37 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:Are you suggesting that you are the arbiter of comedy?

No. I'm just suggesting that you're not funny.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but comedy is subjective. Just because you do not find something amusing, does not mean that it is not funny to someone else.

...Mmk. That's fine. So anyway, feminism is a really broad term and not all feminists agree. Not all Republicans agree. Not all Democrats agree. That's why there are party primaries where people form the same ideology debate their differences. I can think of multiple significant topics where libertarians strongly disagree including abortion, intellectual property, open borders and mandatory vaccinations to name a few. These are people whom all insist they are arguing from the exact same value (freedom and liberty) using the same exact framework (Constitution).

So as you can see, just as people within ANY broad ideology can disagree, so too can feminists! Just because a group of feminists believes XYZ doesn't mean all do. I don't believe in feminism that requires government force or intervention. For example I don't believe in free contraception whereas Hayd might. But I do support various feminist goals such as highlighting women's issues that I feel are important or deserve attention. That isn't to say that men don't suffer things that don't deserve attention. And I acknowledge that legally women have more rights. However I think there are social disparities worth addressing regarding sexism against both sexes, and I think highlighting sexual assault against women is still a really big issue. I just saw a pretty illuminating documentary on it.

At 7/20/2016 12:36:06 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:How many examples of bat sh!t crazy feminists do you need for you to change you opinion of them? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm actually looking for an exact number.

Those examples would be of feminazis, and I don't need any examples to know that they are batsh!t crazy, since I already know they are. But you can't give any examples of actual feminists, and their ideologies as layed out in my post, of being crazy. All you can show are feminazis

Also, what reproductive rights are women not afforded? What rights are they missing that men enjoy? Why should domestic abuse be focused around women, when both sexes experience it (men are victims around 40% of the time) and why does there need to be any sort of push if the laws already exist to punish those who commit these crimes?

Reproductive rights would be contraceptives, like birth control pills, and abortion. Men don't have to give birth, or become pregnant with a child. Thus the mother's ability to terminate it, have abortion, is necessary. Many people are pushing to make contraceptives illegal, and abortion is illegal in many states.

What's your link for the 40% statistic.

You have created a "No True Scotsman: surrounding feminism. No matter what I say, Mo matter how many examples I show, no matter how much evidence I show, you can always say, "well that's not a real feminist". That's a very disingenuous means of approaching the subjectAs for reproductive rights, what states is abortion illegal? Very curious, since my research shows that abortion is legal in all fifty states and even have looser rules surrounding it that in the ever Also, how exactly does this justify the existence of feminism?Here is the link you requested.https://www.yahoo.com...

At 7/20/2016 12:26:37 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:Are you suggesting that you are the arbiter of comedy?

No. I'm just suggesting that you're not funny.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but comedy is subjective. Just because you do not find something amusing, does not mean that it is not funny to someone else.

...Mmk. That's fine. So anyway, feminism is a really broad term and not all feminists agree. Not all Republicans agree. Not all Democrats agree. That's why there are party primaries where people form the same ideology debate their differences. I can think of multiple significant topics where libertarians strongly disagree including abortion, intellectual property, open borders and mandatory vaccinations to name a few. These are people whom all insist they are arguing from the exact same value (freedom and liberty) using the same exact framework (Constitution).

So as you can see, just as people within ANY broad ideology can disagree, so too can feminists! Just because a group of feminists believes XYZ doesn't mean all do. I don't believe in feminism that requires government force or intervention. For example I don't believe in free contraception whereas Hayd might. But I do support various feminist goals such as highlighting women's issues that I feel are important or deserve attention. That isn't to say that men don't suffer things that don't deserve attention. And I acknowledge that legally women have more rights. However I think there are social disparities worth addressing regarding sexism against both sexes, and I think highlighting sexual assault against women is still a really big issue. I just saw a pretty illuminating documentary on it.

Nothing you have said here leads me to believe that feminism is a relevant cause any longer. Sounds like it's time for feminists to step down and adopt egalitarianism or humanism.

At 7/16/2016 9:00:36 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:Recently, writer Ellen Scott penned an article for Metro UK entitled "Pole-hogging is the new manspreading, and we"re so, so tired of it."

Pole-hogging, writes Scott, is the act of "a man, leaning with his entire back, shoulders, and butt against the pole" in a bus, making other passengers unable to use it. According to Scott, this "epidemic" shows "that men think they have more of a right than women to public spaces."

This isn"t the first time we"ve heard complaints of this nature, nor the obnoxious attempt to use "man" as a pejorative. We"ve seen complaints about "man-spreading" in the Telegraph, (guys opening their legs on the subway and taking up space). In New York City there have been two arrests for the crime of man-spreading. Even man-slamming, the act of men not moving out of the way for women on the street, but simply walking into them if they do not move first.

I can imagine it is exhausting to see men comfortably traveling on the bus when your micro-aggression radar is set to max all day long.

These criticisms against men are, for the most part, simply a matter of personal experience. What should really matter is the cold hard fact that women have many more special social privileges set aside for them than men do; privileges they feel entitled to.

There is not a single "men"s-only" gym in my area, but plenty just for women. Every pole dancing studio in my area is just for women, if anything making them the "pole-hoggers." There are seats set aside only for women, and safe spaces on our campuses where males are excluded. The fact is most of these privileges are requested for by women, yet we rarely see men do the same. So who really feels entitled to the space around them?

When feminists ask for gender equality, they rarely seem to want to change their own privileges, such as the "women and children first." And if men seek an equal footing, feminists are first in line to oppose them. When a British MP recently requested a day of Parliamentary debates on predominantly male issues like suicide and workplace fatality, modeled on an already-existing equivalent for women"s issues, the response of a left-wing feminist MP was to ridicule the suggestion.

It almost seems guaranteed that if they could, these ladies would request an entire section of the bus for themselves. Yet I expect they would still find some way to continue the cries of oppression and discrimination. Stare rape? Smell spreading? Male voice-spreading? It"s sure to happen eventually. The hypersensitive never really solve problems: they just invent new ones.

They"ll continue to see what they want to see with their micro-aggression radar"s and hypersensitivity levels to max.

Yes it"s rude to take up extra space on the subway, and yes, so is blocking a handrail or taking up a seat with your bag, but both genders do it. The identity politics at play here is nothing but an irrational dislike for one half of the population, and does little to actually solve the problem of minor inconveniences on public transit. Perhaps if complaints were targeted at rude people, rather than an entire demographic of society, than maybe, just maybe, we might see some real social progress.

Unfortunately, feminists seem more inclined to vilify men than make the world a better place for everyone. To them, it doesn"t matter how equal our society is or how pandered to women are. All that matters is that they stay the "victim." I suspect the oppression Olympics will continue until men are accused of oxygen hogging and demanded to stop.

- written by Lauren Southern.

Feminism was never needed. Movements are for people who are impatient. Congress was voting for women to vote in the late 19th century. Long before the suffragette movement.

Also women have been half the population for a longggggg time. No one to blame but yourselves.